Average Unemployment Rates For US Presidents Since World War II - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-04-2010, 08:19 PM   #91
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:38 PM
[QUOTE=U2387;6825187]
Quote:



Remember those Budweiser Frog commercials?

You talk out of both sides of your mouth more than those frogs.
I see your still unable to engage in a discussion in this forum without making irrelevant childish comments about other forum members.

Quote:
You have complained about the deficit numerous times, you clearly take the conservative limited gov't tinkering w/the economy view, what would you and your friends have honestly done had the stimulus been any bigger?
When have I complained about the deficit numerous times? Just show us once!

Quote:
The reason we are not out of the woods entirely yet has nothing to do with a too small stimulus, it has to do with the deep, financial system ruining recession we just went through.
Not all economist agree with that point of view.

Quote:
Right now you are pretending that you don't have a history of posting out of context statistics that supposedly back up your views on things.
Perfect evidence here that would rather talk about STRONGBOW than unemployment, Lyndon Johnson, Reagan or Obama. Can't you for once leave this personal crap behind?



Quote:
What is so dishonest about what you are doing is your choice of NOW, less than 2 years into Obama's Presidency when he inherited a nosedive, to compare it to all other Presidencies that either had 4 or 8 full years.
So one is not allowed to make any such comparison between the Presidents? We can't have a list like this now, a year from now, or two years from now. The reason we can't have such a list comparing the Presidents is that President Obama might be at the bottom or near the bottom.

In fact, for the 2012 election campaign, we should ban any discussion of unemployment because it could unfairly impact Obama's electoral chances.

I assure you, if Bush's name was at the bottom, the reaction to this thread would be entirely different.


Quote:
It is you who is asking us to forget your bias and lack of context history here.
How can you discuss any issue in this forum if your always going to be making personal comments about what you think another forum member did in a thread from the past?

Basically what your saying is, whether or not the posting of any facts or figures is biased or not, is dependent on who is posting it?

If someone who voted for Obama post this data, then its unbiased. If someone who voted for McCain posts this data, its biased. That seems to be your logic.
__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-04-2010, 08:31 PM   #92
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Because we're all too stupid to be able to read a list of presidents and figure out which one is our current president.
Some people may have thought that because Obama is only 18 months into his Presidency, that he would not have been included in the list. Putting it in bold is just helpful reminder that he is on the list. People put various things in bold in here all the time which is sometimes helpful.

Quote:
It's awfully cute of you to be all coy about it, but it's very easy to view your posting history here, see what kind of stats you post and where, and figure out your bias. Very easy.
Damn, if only I had gotten someone else, an Obama supporter, an independent, to post the list comparing the average unemployment rate during each of the 12 Presidential administrations for which there is raw data for, then it would be regarded as factual and unbiased.
__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-04-2010, 08:33 PM   #93
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinitum98 View Post
This is the stupidest comment I've ever seen. Its so pointless that its even hard to argue against.

Disclosure: I'm a moderate fiscal Republican.
I see a list, not a comment.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-04-2010, 08:43 PM   #94
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinitum98 View Post
Although they are unbiased, it makes absolutely no sense to compare the various presidents, especially Bush's average and Obama's average, like you pointed out.

Either you're smart enough to know why it makes no sense to compare and are just doing so to lead dumb people to believe that Obama is no good, or you're dumb enough to make a judgment on Obama's vs. Bush's handling of the economy based on these numbers.
Economist, politicians and journalist make these comparisons all the time. I did this comparison on unemployment in the most unbiased way possible. I did not take any high points or low points, leave out any record or period of time. Every bit of data that is available from the Bereau of Labor Statistics on unemployment was used.

I never stated that the averages made Lyndon Johnson the greatest President of all time or Barack Obama the worst. I never even commented on what impact if any each Presidential administration had on the unemployment numbers while they were in office. But the US population was indeed impacted by the job environment as shown with these numbers and it no doubt has had an impact on politics.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-04-2010, 09:15 PM   #95
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,886
Local Time: 03:38 PM
YouTube - Obama on Unemployment: "At Least It's Not at 12, 13 or 15 Percent"

Just another garden variety pol...

Nothing about this president is special, he was only the next in a line of jokers.
__________________
Bluer White is online now  
Old 07-04-2010, 10:10 PM   #96
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 03:38 PM
[QUOTE=Strongbow;6825704][QUOTE=U2387;6825187]

I see your still unable to engage in a discussion in this forum without making irrelevant childish comments about other forum members.

It is neither irrelevant nor childish.





When have I complained about the deficit numerous times? Just show us once!

We had several long discussions about debt as a percentage of GDP, Obama and Bush, Clinton and Reagan on the deficit, etc.

You can look up the history as easily as I can.


Quote:
Not all economist agree with that point of view.
All the major economic research firms have come to the same conclusion I have. The overwhelming consensus is on the view I stated.

Talk to McCain's Advisor, Moody's Mark Zandi.


Quote:
Perfect evidence here that would rather talk about STRONGBOW than unemployment, Lyndon Johnson, Reagan or Obama. Can't you for once leave this personal crap behind?
Notice you did not quote the parts where I went in depth about unemployment.

You never do.

All I am doing is pointing out why you are in no way credible here.

As a matter of fact, and this is in the posting history as well, I very rarely make any kind of personal attacks.

You still don't understand the difference between "Strongbow is a (fill in the blank)" personal attack and an entirely relevant discussion of your posting history and how you present the issues.

Again, 99% of what I say in FYM is intelligent discussion of the issues. I am as guilty as anyone of saying the odd stupid thing once in a while, and I readily admit that. However, you read these threads, Sting, and you know very well that I don't just parrot the liberals here. I am actually a pretty moderate Democrat.





Quote:
So one is not allowed to make any such comparison between the Presidents? We can't have a list like this now, a year from now, or two years from now. The reason we can't have such a list comparing the Presidents is that President Obama might be at the bottom or near the bottom.

In fact, for the 2012 election campaign, we should ban any discussion of unemployment because it could unfairly impact Obama's electoral chances.


This is a whopper!

Yes, buddy, U2387 and his band of thought police are coming to your door to stop this discussion from happening.

Shocking.

No one here in this thread has said you cant make these comparisons or that they should be banned or curtailed with each day we get closer to the 2012 election.

We are just pointing out that it is a rather pointless exercise at this point in Obama's Presidency. And we all know why you posted it, it fits right in with your history.

Plus, can anyone without a bias honestly make a case for Obama being responsible for the unemployment situation we have today?

I know of no credible and objective economic source that puts any blame on Obama's policies thus far. I know of none who have suggested that the recovery could have gone faster given the circumstances.

What would McCain have done that would have made it any better than it is now? Want to answer that?

He would probably have done a big stimulus(anyone wouldve, we had to, everyone was saying that in late 2008) and then further jacked up the deficits with more tax cuts that didn't work for the last 8 years.

Quote:
I assure you, if Bush's name was at the bottom, the reaction to this thread would be entirely different.
I assure everyone if Sting liked the President in office now, this thread would never have existed.




Quote:
How can you discuss any issue in this forum if your always going to be making personal comments about what you think another forum member did in a thread from the past?
Look at my history again.

There is very little personal commentary when compared to discussion of issues. I wont put my intelligence or wit up against anyone here, but I will put my willingness to discuss in a thoughtful way up against absolutely anyone here, yourself ESPECIALLY in half a second.

You are no one to talk about anyone's record of discussion on issues here, never mind mine. You know I post substance, you are just denying reality yet again.

Quote:
Basically what your saying is, whether or not the posting of any facts or figures is biased or not, is dependent on who is posting it?

If someone who voted for Obama post this data, then its unbiased. If someone who voted for McCain posts this data, its biased. That seems to be your logic.[
What was your point in posting it?

We all are pretty well aware of the statistics over time.

You are trying to make a political point against Obama, and doing it in an unfair way we all know your rabid bias.

Plus, you are posting it not in response to a question or for the sake of local pub trivia night, you are posting it on a POLITICAL DISCUSSION BOARD.

You are trying to start a discussion. So obviously, more has to be read into it than the numbers, if you want the thread to be successful.
__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 07-04-2010, 10:16 PM   #97
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,609
Local Time: 02:38 PM
since this is a u2 site and all, i liken looking at the unemployment rates now as i did when people were talking about u2's setlists at the beginning of the american leg.

stay with me a moment. some complained just a couple shows into the leg that it was static, nothing was changing, etc. i (along with numerous others) said give it time, wait until the leg - or even better, the entire tour was over before comparing. apples to apples and all that. it wasn't fair to put a handful of shows up against the five legs of vertigo as some were doing.

it's like this now. we're not even halfway into obama's term, and he's being compared to people who were president for eight years. even comparing against the one term presidents is unfair, i think, only because we're comparing finished stories against obama's. who knows how the next 2 1/2 years will play out. not even going into whether or not he'll run in 2012 or whether he'd win, i just think comparing 4-8 years against 1 1/2 is inaccurate and more than a little unfair. though bvs said this in the very first reply, so yeah.
__________________
KhanadaRhodes is offline  
Old 07-04-2010, 11:31 PM   #98
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 01:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluer White View Post
Just another garden variety pol...

Nothing about this president is special, he was only the next in a line of jokers.
Most politicians aren't completely honest because they know the public wants their cake and to eat it too. Usually there has to be a debt crisis before there is a groundswell from the public to urge politicians to do something about it (eg. Greece) otherwise the current administration is happy to pass the buck on to the next one even if they have to print money and test their creditworthiness.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 07-05-2010, 08:18 AM   #99
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:38 PM
[QUOTE=U2387;6825767][QUOTE=Strongbow;6825704]
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post



It is neither irrelevant nor childish.

Oh it is both. FYM is a place to discuss issues where people should be engaging in respectful discussion. Making negative comments about other forum members certainly is not in keeping with that.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-05-2010, 08:24 AM   #100
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post





When have I complained about the deficit numerous times? Just show us once!

We had several long discussions about debt as a percentage of GDP, Obama and Bush, Clinton and Reagan on the deficit, etc.

You can look up the history as easily as I can.



Debt as a percentage of GDP IS NOT THE DEFICIT!

Your the one that claims there was some discussion on the deficit, so if that is in fact the case, you should be able to show us, easily. Its your claim, you should be able to prove it, easily, if its true.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-05-2010, 08:40 AM   #101
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:38 PM
[QUOTE=U2387;6825767][QUOTE=Strongbow;6825704]
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post



All I am doing is pointing out why you are in no way credible here.

. .
Why? Are you incapable of stating a point made or argument made is in your view not credible, without claiming the PERSON is not credible? Why can't you focus your points and opinions on the issue without discussing what someone said in the past or in another thread?

Quote:
As a matter of fact, and this is in the posting history as well, I very rarely make any kind of personal attacks.

You still don't understand the difference between "Strongbow is a (fill in the blank)" personal attack and an entirely relevant discussion of your posting history and how you present the issues.
Why is making negative comments about another forum members posting history relevant to any specific issue being discussed in a thread? Why can't you discuss issues like the economy, Obama, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Republican party etc, without making these strange negative comments about other forum members?

If you were invited on C-Span or CNN to discuss your opinions on these issues, would you need to make comments about Strongbow in order to get your point across?
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-05-2010, 08:51 AM   #102
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:38 PM
[QUOTE=U2387;6825767][QUOTE=Strongbow;6825704]
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post

I assure everyone if Sting liked the President in office now, this thread would never have existed.
Oh, so if anyone likes the President in office now, they would NEVER EVER post a list comparing the average unemployment rates of the past 12 presidents?

I opposed candidate Obama on a number of issues as well as feeling he was far less experienced and prepared for the office when compared to McCain.

Since Obama has become president though, I have generally approved of most of his policies and decisions as president.


Quote:
There is very little personal commentary when compared to discussion of issues.
The point is why is there any personal commentary?

Quote:
What was your point in posting it?

We all are pretty well aware of the statistics over time.
These statistics come from ALL the monthly unemployment rates from January 1948 to June 2010. A total of 750 different monthly unemployment numbers to be exact. I had to add up each month of unemployment numbers during which each president served and then divide the number by the total months. It took a good bit of time to do that. I was curious to see what the numbers were for all the Presidents for which there was data. I previously only knew the averages for Clinton and Bush. I was interested to see what the results were and thought others here might find it interesting as well.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-05-2010, 09:09 AM   #103
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KhanadaRhodes View Post
since this is a u2 site and all, i liken looking at the unemployment rates now as i did when people were talking about u2's setlists at the beginning of the american leg.

stay with me a moment. some complained just a couple shows into the leg that it was static, nothing was changing, etc. i (along with numerous others) said give it time, wait until the leg - or even better, the entire tour was over before comparing. apples to apples and all that. it wasn't fair to put a handful of shows up against the five legs of vertigo as some were doing.

it's like this now. we're not even halfway into obama's term, and he's being compared to people who were president for eight years. even comparing against the one term presidents is unfair, i think, only because we're comparing finished stories against obama's. who knows how the next 2 1/2 years will play out. not even going into whether or not he'll run in 2012 or whether he'd win, i just think comparing 4-8 years against 1 1/2 is inaccurate and more than a little unfair. though bvs said this in the very first reply, so yeah.
Don't worry, as each new month of unemployment data becames available, we'll add it to the results.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-05-2010, 11:22 AM   #104
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,609
Local Time: 02:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Oh it is both. FYM is a place to discuss issues where people should be engaging in respectful discussion. Making negative comments about other forum members certainly is not in keeping with that.
as you've been told before, please leave the moderating to the moderators. if you think someone is breaking a rule it can be reported. if you don't want to read someone's post, please use your ignore list.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Don't worry, as each new month of unemployment data becames available, we'll add it to the results.
thanks, that doesn't address my point at all.
__________________
KhanadaRhodes is offline  
Old 07-05-2010, 02:06 PM   #105
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 03:38 PM
For the final time, and I can't emphasize it enough, you can post it all you want, like or dislike the policies of the President. What I am saying is that you, Strongbow, posting this in a forum meant to start discussion, its not a reference page, not a response to an inquiry for BLS information, is only intended to cast Obama in a bad light.

In the further discussion that has ensued, you haven't yet told us why Obama should be held responsible for these numbers. You have made the Fox News laughable "we agree with the lefties" claim that the stimulus is not big enough, but that you most certainly just got from some website or book that was in front of you.

All you did was put the numbers out there out of context with Obama at the bottom, when he hasn't even had a full term, and you hoped people would be dumb enough to say "worst President ever."

I don't know why I am even talking about this Infinitum 98 really said it all here.



[QUOTE=Strongbow;6826043]
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow;6825704


[QUOTE
These statistics come from ALL the monthly unemployment rates from January 1948 to June 2010. A total of 750 different monthly unemployment numbers to be exact. I had to add up each month of unemployment numbers during which each president served and then divide the number by the total months. It took a good bit of time to do that. I was curious to see what the numbers were for all the Presidents for which there was data. I previously only knew the averages for Clinton and Bush. I was interested to see what the results were and thought others here might find it interesting as well.
You didn't have to do anything- the numbers- by quarter, by year, by month etc are all out there for anyone who looks for them.

We are all pretty well aware of what the unemployment numbers have been historically.


You are posting them in a forum trying to start a discussion, and, as I keep emphasizing, commenting on how you post about ISSUES is not a personal attack.

You are literally the only one here who keeps trying to come back with things that you have been factually proven wrong on years ago like Iraq. That you cant see reality is relevant to a discussion over what you post.

I am quite capable of discussing issues without discussing people here, I pointed out my posting history.

If I were asked on CNN, of course, I could discuss issues like anyone else, I do it here all the time in spite of what you want to keep saying.

It is not at all uncommon on CNN or CSPAN programs to have someone like Rush Limbaugh or the Drudge Report on the right or Michael Moore on the left brought up and their claims are taken with a grain of salt by the hosts and guests because of their history of framing issues and taking them out of context to bolster their biases.

Just as I suspected, another unproductive exchange, you still haven't told us why Obama is responsible for this. Never will. You never discuss issues, just post out of context stats and repeat long debunked claims that you've cut and pasted from God knows where.

I am done with this back and forth with you in this thread, we all know why you posted what you did here, no one has defended you.

The rest of the forum is not interested in reading another back and forth between the two of us, and I am not interested in engaging in one.
__________________

__________________
U2387 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com